Would YOU save a dying stranger… if they were vegan?

Social media users have criticised an Oxford academic who controversially claimed that letting meat-eaters die if they were drowning can be ethical because of the suffering they cause to animals.  

Dr Michael Plant, a philosopher focusing on happiness, and who eats meat, argued that it can be justifiable to not save people like himself.

Critics immediately disputed his argument, based entirely on a hypothetical scenario where a member of the public witnessed a meat-eater dying. 

MailOnline readers said the logic — which Dr Plant did not confess to sharing— ‘works both ways’.

Twitter users described it as ‘literally nuts’. One called Julie said: ‘I don’t eat red meat but whether I did nor not, I’d never let a stranger die if I could save them.’

Another joked: ‘Two steaks will be consumed tonight in honour of this Tweet.’

One user, who doesn’t publish their real name, asked: ‘What if they’re unconscious is there a way of telling meat eaters from vegetarians?’

Killian Muster replied: ‘You don’t need to tell if they’re vegans. They WILL tell you.’

And Paul Fox said: ‘Remember, when you see someone in imminent deadly danger, to make them fill in a questionnaire before trying to save them.’

Whereas Ali Strachan Brown, questioned if the same logic could be used for those who voted for Brexit. 

‘Should you save a dying stranger if they voted or promoted #Brexit?’, they asked. 

Another user, Paul Fox, questioned the wisdom of asking lifestyle and diet questions in an emergency scenario 

Whereas Ali Strachan Brown asked if the same logic should apply to people who voted for Brexit

Dr Michael Plant (pictured here) has previously said he is not a vegetarian himself but tries to only eat animals that have had happy lives

Other Twitter users questioned how Dr Plant could promote these views given he is not a vegan himself.

JacquiYeol was one such user, adding they had suffered after trying veganism for a while. ‘How do these guys get paid so much to argue for veganism without doing it?’, they said. ‘As a vegan I was too sickly to promote my cause well.’

Dr Plant’s argument, published in a academic journal, stems from a conflict of what he called two commonly held beliefs.

The first is human beings have a duty to rescue each other when doing so comes at a trivial cost. For example, jumping into a pond to save a drowning child but ruining your clothes in the process. 

The second belief, Dr Plant claims, is it is wrong to eat meat because of the suffering animals can experience in factory farms. 

Livestock, like chickens, can often be kept in cramped, dirty conditions before they are slaughtered. 

He says this conflict leaves people who subscribe to the second belief in a morally interesting position if they encounter someone who eats meat drowning in a pond, and that allowing them to die might, in fact, be the lesser evil. 

‘It seems universally accepted that doing or allowing a harm is permissible — and may even be required — when it is the lesser evil,’ he wrote in the Journal of Controversial Ideas.

Julie questioned how any person could let a stranger die in any circumstances, regardless of their beliefs

Some Twitter users like JacquiYeol questioned how someone who is not a vegan could push these views. The author of the controversial article Dr Michael Plant has previously described himself as a ‘welfatarian’ – someone who eats animals only if the creature has experienced a happy life prior to their death

Others members of the public simply vowed to eat more meat in response to the story

‘I argue that, if meat eating is wrong on animal suffering grounds then, once we consider how much suffering might occur, it starts to seem plausible that saving strangers would be the greater evil than not rescuing them and is, therefore, not required after all.’

Dr Plant compares this to a pond scenario where, instead of a child, a person sees a cruel dictator known for torturing their populace drowning.

To save the dictator would allow them to continue inflicting suffering, so, similar to a meat eater, allowing them to drown might be the lesser evil. 

He acknowledges most readers will consider this argument ‘preposterous’.

But he counters that since a year of a person eating meat is roughly equivalent to five years of chickens suffering in abominable conditions, the total ‘negative wellbeing’ created by that person over time is quite large.  

Dr Plant also acknowledges some might argue that saving the meat eater’s life is permissible if you convert them to being a vegetarian upon rescuing them.

But, the moral merits of this could vary on if the person is successfully converted, he adds.    

‘It seems most likely they would assume your request was mad and ignore it, “You won’t believe what happened to me today. I fell in the pond and would have drowned if someone hadn’t pulled me out. But that wasn’t the weird thing. The person who pulled me out then asked if I ate a lot of chicken and demanded I stop.”,’ he said. 

‘The reason we seriously countenance not saving the drowning dictator is that, while the best outcome would be if you saved him and then successfully convinced him to stop doing bad things, we recognise this outcome is not at all likely.’

Dr Plant has argued that some moral philosophies allow people to ethically not save meat-eaters in life-or-death situations due to the cruelty their diet inflicts on animals in factory farms 

Such farms, where animals like chickens are kept in cramped dirty conditions, often in pain for months of their life before being slaughtered are controversial 

Dr Plant concludes his argument by saying there is a ‘deep and underappreciated tension’ between the beliefs of saving lives and not eating from factory farms.  

‘While we would not normally consider these beliefs to be relevant to each other, I pressed the straightforward problem that, if we have those animal welfare concerns then, when we account for them, it reduces, and may remove, the obligation to rescue others. I consider this surprising and disturbing,’ he said. 

Dr Plant has previously described himself as a ‘welfatarian’ – someone who eats animals only if the creature has experienced a happy life prior to their death. 

He does not specifically address in his article if welfatarians should be saved in life-or-death situations.